Republicans and Democrats alike prevented Sen. Tom Harkin’s ATM fee-cap amendment from reaching the Senate floor on Tuesday night. Democrats are trying to get the main bill passed before the Memorial Day recess, so they’re only allowing debate on amendments that have strong support — and preferably bipartisan support. Harkin’s ATM amendment does not pass that test.
The amendment is not dead — Harkin could try to bring it up again, either with this bill or with a different bill later on in the session. But at this point it seems unlikely to be part of the current bill.
Meanwhile, here are a few more people speaking up to oppose the amendment.
From a letter in the Des Moines (IA) Register:
I have to tell you, Sen. Tom Harkin, how disappointed I am with your proposed 50 cents maximum per ATM withdrawal fees. I’m a small-business owner in the ATM business, not a bank, but a hard-working, tax-paying U.S. and Iowa citizen.
It is an absolutely ridiculous statement that ATM withdrawals cost us a mere 36 cents, Senator Harkin. I have quite a few ATMs and drive more than 1,800 miles per week. I have the cost of gas, a vehicle, the cost of the ATMs, the interest for the cash in the ATMs, etc. I pay my locations between 50 cents and $1.50 per withdrawal as I lease the space in the locations.
Is Congress going to stop the person who charges $2.29 for a cup of coffee versus the store that charges 99 cents? Is Congress going to put a cap on Nike shoes when a merchant charges more than $200 for a pair of shoes that cost him $65, but the demand is there, so he can charge what he wants?
The biggest difference is my ATMs have a screen that asks the customer if they agree to the charges. If not, they hit cancel.
— Jeff “Ole” Olson, Guttenberg
And the Cato Institute resurrects a paper from 1998, the last time a senator (in that case, Republican Al D’Amato of New York) proposed capping surcharges:
Consumers have the ability to obtain money from their bank accounts without paying a surcharge. ATM surcharges allow banks and other ATM operators to deploy machines in more convenient locations than might otherwise be possible. Customers who are unwilling to pay a surcharge incur the cost of inconvenience, while those who value the convenience more than the cost of the fee have the option of paying for it. Senator D’Amato, Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)–Congress’s self-proclaimed socialist–and numerous consumer groups have formed an unlikely coalition to put an end to ATM surcharges. If successful, that campaign would limit the options of consumers, since there would be no means to support the more convenient ATM machines. Prohibiting ATM surcharges would only harm consumers by slowing the expansion of ATMs and reducing the number of ATMs currently deployed without making anyone better off.
The 1998 effort failed, which is why you find privately-owned ATMs all over the place, complementing the bank-owned ATM networks. It looks like the latest effort will fail, too — which is good for consumers and good for business.















